RAINBOW CHILDREN'S MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 without making any adjustments. Therefore, the assessee's appeal against the Section 263 order was rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 without making any adjustments.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal against an order passed under Section 263 becomes infructuous when the consequential order under Section 143(3) makes no adjustments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH : Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is assessee’s appeal for the AY 2014-15 against the order of Ld.CIT-3, Hyderabad passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 22.02.2019. This appeal has been taken through video conferencing on 14.09.2020 and both the parties were heard.
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been passed by the A.O. wherein no adjustments have been made by the AO and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee u/s 263 has become infructuous. The ld.Counsel for the assessee has also forwarded an e-mail dated 12th September, 2020
Rainbow Children’s Medicare Private Limited, Hyd. to this effect. Taking the same into consideration, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as ‘infructuous’.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as ‘infructuous’. Order pronounced on 17th September, 2020.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026